Coal Imports (Hansard, 12 February 1991)

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the import of coal into the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes. The purpose of the Bill is to end inconsistency and to give British Coal a chance to hold its markets. We know that, when current contracts run out, the chairman of National Power, the largest coal user in the United Kingdom, is planning to import 50 per cent. of the coal needed to run its power stations.

On 14 January, The Daily Telegraph reported that Mr. Baker is planning to seek international tenders for all National Power's coal needs shortly after it is privatised. Another report in the Financial Times on 4 January suggested that National Power would be investing in three new coal import facilities on Teesside, Humberside and Milford Haven.

The special report published by the Committee considering the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill asked the Government to take whatever steps were necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the coal industry. That has not happened, and the Government seem willing to overlook activities that are detrimental to the coal industry.

The Committee considered two private Bills—the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. The latter was withdrawn because it was amended by the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), said that, in the light of advice from Speaker's Counsel, We unanimously decided that we wished to see further provision made to regulate any possible future sale of the proposed North Killingholme facilities, over and above the provisions of the existing general law. He went on: We therefore unanimously agree that clause 26 of the Bill should be amended with wording along the lines that the installation cannot be sold for 10 years after the passing of the Bill, and thereafter only with the express consent of the Secretary of State. The issue was not addressed during the proceedings on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, for two possible reasons. First, in introducing the Bill to the Committee, Sir Frank Layfield indicated that the major improvements to the port at Immingham were not specifically designed in any sense of the word for coal purposes. They depend specifically upon general industrial and other consumers' current needs and the need to eliminate present existing wasteful difficulties and practices. Secondly, Sir Keith Stuart, chairman of Associated British Ports, told the Committee that Associated British Ports did not intend to go to the capital markets to raise the finance for the Immingham project. He said: The company's ability to generate the cash required for its investment in its ports is such that for our foreseeable needs we are expecting the business itself to generate sufficient capital for investments of this kind in terms of the initial cash input. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it did not occur to the Committee that a company as profitable as Associated British Ports would seek finance for its proposed new 734 Humber terminal. But that is precisely what it has done. The Financial Times of 15 January reported that the terminal, with a capacity of 12 million tonnes of coal, is to be financed and run as a joint venture between PowerGen and National Power, and that the generating companies plan to take a 40 per cent. stake each in the company, with ABP holding the remaining 20 per cent. The Financial Times report pointed out that that was at the centre of the generating companies' plans to reduce dependence on supplies from British Coal.

There could have been nothing but sharp practice by the sponsors of the Associated British Ports Bill. The House should understand that the Committee, which was dealing with two Bills at the same time, threw the Killingholme Bill out because it included an amendment giving the right to sell. The Associated British Ports Bill was allowed to proceed because there was never any suggestion in Committee of an intention to sell; indeed, the contrary was the case. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Committee would have taken the same decision on it had it included such an amendment. Now we find that National Power and PowerGen are to own 80 per cent. of the company.

Following that, there is an announcement from Mr. Baker, chairman of National Power, that he intends to import 50 per cent. of his coal from abroad after the end of the 1993 contracts. What the company did in deceiving the Committee and, in effect, the House, was tantamount to sharp practice. Without that sharp practice, I am sure that it would not have received permission from the House to go ahead with the development.

My Bill would give the Secretary of State power, through the House, to control imports of coal. The Secretary of State would be required to base his or her judgment on the national interest and not on short-term commercial interest. The Secretary of State would control people in powerful positions, elected by no one, and prevent them from taking decisions which could destroy the country's reserves of coal for short-term benefit, resulting in the United Kingdom being at the mercy of foreign competitors in meeting the national demands over the medium and longer term.

No one outside the democratic forum of the House should be allowed to take major decisions to destroy a great industry that supplies the main source of our energy when, in years to come, we shall need that energy; otherwise, we shall be in the hands of foreign competitors. Therefore, I ask the House to support the Bill.